Business Research Ethics
One will discuss who was affected by the shameless acts of this company. In addition, one will explain how a company like this an have ethical ways of producing pharmaceutical drugs by following the rules. The company thought they could get away with unethical research because of money, but in the end justice will always prevail. “If you think corrupt and dishonest drug companies are being honest about vaccine safety, efficacy and adverse reactions, you have been deceived by their marketing and PR departments” (Beeline, 2012 pig. /6). Beeline was referring to the third largest global vaccine manufacturer in the world, Silhouetting. One will discuss the events, were ASK lied to the world about his or her products with false Information to deter themselves. Silhouetting is a prime example of an organization with unethical intentions that go by their rules and money can buy anything, like morals. Furthermore, one will discuss how this unethical situation could have been avoided and performed the right way to benefit, not hurt, there consumers.
After the merger of two giants, Gallo Welcome and Smithies Became, ASK was established, and where based in Beresford, England. They were known for manufactured pharmaceuticals, vaccines, oral health care products,
Need essay sample on "Business Research Ethics"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Universal health care colossal ASK arranged to plead guilty and pay the fee of $3 billion dollars to correct its immoral and civil liability ascending from the corporation’s criminal advancement of certain treatment medications, its letdown reported particular safety statistics, and its civil ability for suspected untruthful price reporting practices (Beeline, 2012). They had three-counts against them, together with two counts of misbranded medications, Paxar, and Weltering and one-count of failing to release safety records about the medicine Viand to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). SKI also had to dish out money to resolve its civil legal responsibility with the federal government under the False Claims Act, and the states. The three drugs mentioned earlier were also part of the civil settlement. One will break down the three drugs that were involved n the settlement and cask’s unethical performance. According to (Beeline, 2012), the administration claims that from April 1998 to August 2003, ASK, despite the FDA at no time permitting the drug for pediatric usage, dishonestly endorsed Paxar for treating depression in patients under the age of 18.
They mislead and focused on a younger vulnerable generation easily seduced into doing things without researching information first. It is unethical to take advantage of people for one’s own personal gain. ASK took part in organizing, printing, and issuing a deceptive medical article, which misquoted a medical statement of Paxar, demonstrating no success in the treatment of depression in patients, when the study obviously failed to establish effectiveness. The second drug that was miss used was Weltering.
The United States suspected that from January 1999 to December 2003, ASK endorsed Weltering, which was accepted for major depressive disorder, weight loss, the treatment of sexual dysfunction substance addictions, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, among other off-label uses (Harper, 2012). All information was false and misleading and the US government caught on and made them pay for both rugs a total of $757,387,200 in fines (Beeline, 2012). Viand, the third drug to be falsely labeled and promoted was discovered between 2001 and 2007 by the US government (Beeline, 2012).
Viand was a diabetes drug that was supposed to be reported to the FDA for approval but was marketed illegally. There was missing information in the data studies conducted regarding European regulations concerning the heart failure safety of Viand. The FDA decided to black label all bottles containing this medicine to warn the consumers of the horrible side effects eke congestive heart failure and heart attacks. ASK was fined $242,612,800 for this drug alone, which altogether ASK paid out around $3 billion dollars for fines and illegal research studies.
To make matters worse, the US government discovered that ASK supported dinners, lunches, spas, and related programs to swindle the usage of Paxar, Weltering, and Viand in schools, clinics, and childcare facilities. In addition, ASK decided to hire speakers to talk to an audience of well-feed doctors, while treating them to a day at the spa. One would guess if you could not win him or her ever with a buffet at that moment a good cucumber mud mask should do the Job! As a company, they tarnished their name, lost the faith of global consumers, and provided money to the US government to plead guilty.
According to Carmen Rotor, continuing commitment to ensuring that the messages provided by drug manufacturers to doctors and patients are true and accurate. In addition, the decisions regarding what drugs were prescribed to sick patients are based on best medical Judgments, not false and misleading claims or improper financial inducements. ” (Harper, 2012) In conclusion, unethical research is not limited to small impasses or individuals, but large corporations worldwide.
In this scenario, one sees how a global health care giant can manipulate the system with misleading information and by passing laws to profit off consumers to make billions of dollars. This company could have done the research legally and followed procedure while still making millions, but when money is a factor, he or she will do whatever it takes to make profits. Therefore, these cases against ASK will make them unreliable and classified as fraud artists. One is surprised ASK are still in business and making lions but he or she will forever have a black cloud over their heads for years to come.